prototype
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 2,672
- Reaction score
- 0
Do some reading before spouting.
what is that,idiot,half of that post is not even written by me
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do some reading before spouting.
Actually, the feeling that I'm getting is that we've underestimated the scale of the project. Many assumed that when they spoke of reorganization of battle groups and stuff like that that was it. Fact is, that was just a temporary & immedeate. From IA's perspective it seems to be a fundamental gearing up lasting ten/twenty years for the doctrine to be realized. I mean, the fibre optic communiation networks, the sats, the AWACS and associated equipment required to create the capability required- that drop in on day one right? They're getting into the system in a planned, phase wise approach over a period of ten/15 years. n all of those are quite important for a strategy like this to really work. So you do what you can immedeately and then over a period of time systematically build the infrastructure and keep doing those training exercises so that you can fully realize the potential.
Dear Sir,
Indeed you are right. Some of the issues you mentioned are important. There are others, far more important. In sum, Cold Start is a work in progress. No doubt there will be refinements as we go along; there will inevitably be the alternative of striking the weaker services individually, for instance. Quite easily done, with no scope for the PA to interfere, and every possibility of grinding down the two services to a state of operational collapse.
Sincerely,
I'd rather lose a war than be the FIRST to use a nuke. The only justification for a nuclear attack will be as a retaliation for a nuke strike. We've also got to think of the kind of country we want to be and killing a million people to prove a political or ideological point isn't worth it. We AIN'T the WEST. We are the EAST.When the most professional country ie USA has already used Nuclear weapon knowingly that enemy was not armed with Nuclear warheads, USA has no moral or any right to stop using nuclear weapons's first use. In an actual war scenario with pakistan or china, India shall only be fool not to use Nuclear weapon as offensive than counter strike. If enemy don't wont India on face of Earth than India has every right to go to any length to wipe out the every nooks and corner of enemy country. God knows while we have followed principles of No-First use of WMD, or defensive style of life over last 1000 years. Just dump our old thining and use every trick and oppertunity in the book to achieve the supremacy in the World. Time of Live & Let Live long gone. It's time of Survival of the Fittest. Hinduism has to reinvent itself among the 1000 years continued bloody war between Islam & christianity. World only listen to the Strength.
War between two nuclear powered nations, dodgy, things can spiral out of control, a nuclear exchange could result in the destruction of one country and the end of a civilisation.
International experts believe the NCA (National Command Authority) with the three Operational Commands ASFC, NSFC AFSFC, (Army Strategic Force Command, Navy Strategic Force Command, Air Force Strategic Force Command) have strategic weapons deployed with forces that have trained and practiced launch.
India on the other hand rely's heavily on its air force as her prithvi missile is obsolete and unreliable.
Some hints:
Divya Astra (Divine Weapon). The first war game to demonstrate aspects of the new Cold
March 2004 exercise.
Vajra Shakti. The second test of the Cold Start concepts was the May 2005
Desert Strike. Six months after Vajra Shakti, the Indian military undertook
a third test of both its new doctrinal concepts and its ability to conduct joint
operations
Sanghe Shakti. May 2006 saw the fourth and largest test of Cold Start doctrine; corps-level exercise
Ashwamedh. The fifth major exercise designed to test the Cold Start doctrine, AprilMay 2007.
After these the main exercise there has been at best combined exercises on a form of Air Land Battle doctrine, a morphing of the intended Cold Start. These later exercises have been at best battle groups follow the concepts of manoeuvre warfare.
Manoeuvre warfare not quite the original of Cold Start.
New Recruit
Any war or maneuver requires synchronized assaults from all the three services, buddy. PAF alone won't be playing the game here. Your ground forces as well as your naval fleet will also be an equally critical part. I'd say that PA would have a greater part to play since in this part of the world, Army gets the lion's share of all activities (Pakistan, India and China). Unlike Israel which keeps air force as its top arm and US which keeps Navy as its preferred iniatiator, in Asia it is mostly the Army that does the job.Friends this thread is not to discuss who is better then who but to discuss how can PAF counter Cold Start Doctrine. plz stick to the topic.
Regards
Actually, the feeling that I'm getting is that we've underestimated the scale of the project. Many assumed that when they spoke of reorganization of battle groups and stuff like that that was it. Fact is, that was just a temporary & immedeate. From IA's perspective it seems to be a fundamental gearing up lasting ten/twenty years for the doctrine to be realized. I mean, the fibre optic communiation networks, the sats, the AWACS and associated equipment required to create the capability required- that drop in on day one right? They're getting into the system in a planned, phase wise approach over a period of ten/15 years. n all of those are quite important for a strategy like this to really work. So you do what you can immedeately and then over a period of time systematically build the infrastructure and keep doing those training exercises so that you can fully realize the potential.
Dear Sir,
First with regard to NBC gear, I am aware that it is a temporary measure of protection, and is not intended to last long. This was in response to his vague brandishing of tactical nuclear weapons.
However, the point was weak. It is an absurd proposition that one side will use tactical nuclear weapons and the other side will then quietly fade away. As Ratus Ratus has already said, any introduction of nuclear weapons, whether tactical or strategic, will escalate the war straight away. You will understand that in such an eventuality, nobody will stop to calculate kilotonne yield, mode of delivery and target and then conclude that a tactical nuclear weapon is not a use of nuclear weapons. The first reaction to such a tactical nuclear weapon will be retaliation.
Tactical nuclear weapons are a joke in this scenario.
Secondly, nobody is advocating nuclear war, but then nobody is advocating a free license to one neighbour to attack the other at will, and be assured of no retaliation. Such an assurance cannot be given. Unfortunately, there is a very real failure on the part of Pakistanis in general to understand that the present peace drive is a Manmohan Singh initiative; it does not necessarily have much support even in the Congress party, leave alone the mass of the country. These peace drives happen every time there is a sentimental Punjabi seeking peace at any cost.
On his departure, which is a question of time, you may confidently expect a significant change in our foreign policy, and in our state security policy too. The present Home Minister is a hawk, and is inclined to advocate drastic measures. These are not my wishes or my hopes, these are facts available on enquiry.
If there is another large-scale incident, there will be consequences, and the threat of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, will not count. The Pakistani establishment makes a major error in understanding, in assuming that there is a perpetual position of neutralisation due to Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons. It may prevent an attack, it may not prevent a counter-attack.
So the question of building up the body to neutralise a gun holder means only that if gun neutralises gun, the stronger man beats up the weaker. If either gun is used, the other gun will instantly be used.There is no asymmetric doctrine possible, given the ground-level hostility between the two peoples.
Sincerely
Dear Sir,
The man with the hammer is neither the first nor the second; it is a mono-maniac who insists on seeing the world in terms of one proposition and one only. In this case, everything in the world that occurs is seen in terms of Indian aggression. So, purchase of large transport aircraft, formulation of a doctrine to govern the eventuality of war, to quote just two examples, and with everything else that happens to align with this view as well. That is why to the man with the hammer, the world looks like a nail. It has nothing to do with your limited buying and your unlimited buying, for example.
Regarding the Mumbai incident, this is what you did say:
What I think is India creates a Mumbai like situation
Some questions for you:
- Do you think India created the earlier Mumbai situation? Please feel free to say yes; as the truth emerges, point by point, be sure that you will be reminded at every step.
- If not, if you accept it was an attack by Pakistani terrorists, why did you insinuate that it was an "Indian creation"?
It is quite all right to state, in the teeth of all evidence, that Mumbai was a secret plot by the Indian state to make another country look bad. It is just that I would like you to say it and be on record. It builds the case for a certain class of people being inclined to conspiracy theories in desperation at not being able to defend themselves.
Sincerely,
Cold Start is/was a joke. Mumbai proved that it failed as a deterrent.
Hell the whole premise behind it was a joke. As I detailed on *** the plan was doomed in its goals from the start.
It was never going to mobilize faster than the Pakistanis, never going to penetrate far and fast to threaten population centers or destroy a large part of the PA, not without wrecking itself in the process.
Plus tanks that are good enough to engage the IA inside Pakistan. Where the Pakistanis will be fresh and at best lightly attrited by the IAF, but the IA will be tired, low on consumables and heavily attritted.